KULLAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Kullammal (petitioner) wife of the detenu Ettadi alias Thangavel, against whom the District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem (second respondent) clamped upon the impugned order of detention, in his proceedings C.M.P. No.23/ BLA/94 (C2), dated 11.4.1994, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), castigating him as a bootleggers, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health, challenges the order of detention so passed, in this action.

(2.) THE jurisdictional or fundamental facts, which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention may briefly be stated here, with a view to understand in the best of fashion possible, the arguments projected as affecting the constitutional rights, inhering in favour of the detenu under Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India. (a) THE incident in the ground case took place on 22.3.1994 and a case in connection with the said incident has been registered in Rasipuram P.W. Crime No.1302/94 under Secs. 4(1-A) and 4 (1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1937 - for short "TNP Act") and the narration of the facts of the ground case had been referred to in detail in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention. (b) THE detenu had also come to adverse notice in six other cases of Rasipuram police station. (i) THE first case is relatable to Crime No.255/93 for illicit distillation of arrack on 13.3.1993 for the alleged offence under Sec.4(1)(b) of the T.N.P. Act, registered as S.T.R. No.755/93 by the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, which ended in conviction and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.350 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (ii) THE second case is relatable to sale of illicitly distilled arrack on 10.8.1993 concerned in Crime No.749 of 1993 under Sec. 4(1)(i) of T.N.P. Act and since he expressed his willingness to compound the offence under Sec. 24-D thereof, a compounding fee of Rs.500 was collected under Receipt No. 683/93/ DSP/Salem Rural, dated 20.8.1993. (iii) Similarly, the other four cases referred to as S.Nos. 3 to 6 are relatable to sale of illicitly distilled arrack on different dates, namely, 30.8.1993, 9.10.1993, 27.12.1993 and 26.1.1994 concerned respectively in Crime Nos. 835 of 1993, 2450/93, 3596/ 93 and 415/94 under Sec. 4(1)(i) of the T.N.P. Act and excepting the last case in all other cases, since the detenu expressed his willingness to compound the offence under Sec. 24-D of the Act and compounding fee in a specified sum, in each of the cases, had been collected and receipts for collection of such compounding fee had been issued therefor. However, in the last case, the detenu had been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in S.T.R. No.59 of 1994 by the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram. (c) All the details of those adverse cases had been referred to in paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention in order to point out that he is a habitual offender and his activities are proximately connected to the ground case.

(3.) THE wife of the detenu namely, the petitioner also sent a representation dated nil, which had been received by the first respondent-Government on the 5th of May, 1994. In the representation so made, a request had been made for furnishing copies of the documents relatable to the foundational facts of those adverse cases.